SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 4990, 21 March 1877, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

\.,. IN BANCO. Tomdat, March 20. (Before their Honors the Chief Justice and Mr. . Justice Richmond.) CANNINO V. HENAItE MATUA. The Court delivered judgment in this case, a demurrer to.plaintiffs declaration. The first obiection was that the pleadings did not sufficiently identify plaintiff with the person whose name appeared on the promissory note in reipeet of which the suit was ; brought, and ■econdly that it was shown that he had; ft : riffht to sue. The Court decided . there was '■ ■uffioieut .identification,, and that plaintiff could sue as payee of the note. j BAIiAKCE V. CABBOM. '■".,!. The Chief Justice, after' stating.the principal features of the pleadings, which were given . fully in our report of the argument, said he did ' hot feel justified in intercepting the case on demurrer; The case- must go to the ]ury as the Court could not say-wbether thejuatters W«*ded, if proved satisfactory at the trial, wduld or wo ild not be a sufficient answer to the allegations of plaintiff in the minds of the '"Mr Justice Kichmond concurred with the Chief Justice, and said plaintiff. seemed to. kave made an error in supposing each, plea of defendant to be intended an an answer in itself to theaction, whereas the evident intention was that the various pleas should be taken together as an answer to the action. Demurrer was overruled, with costs. ' BCHOLTJ4E V. MATOB AKD CORPORATIOX OF WBLUNGTOIT. Mr. Brandon mentioned this case, and endeavored to show that certain issues had been found for plaintiff "at the trial, and therefore the Diction made at the last sitting day was wrongly dismissed. . He asked for leave to appeal. _ , f The Chief Justice said Mr. Brandon was wrong in his recollection of what took place at the trial. He Baw no reason why leave ihould be given to appeal. - "Mr. Justice Kichmond said he did not like to refuse leave to appeal; but the case was, he might say, almost hopeless. Leave to appeal refused.